The ONLY thing EU3 was better in was that the earlier start date allowed you to play over 420 years. I am sure they will add it in an expansion later though (or maybe an even earlier 1356 start date) 
Your thoughts: EU3 vs EU4
- Thread starter Bertouch
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not really though, tech isn't the customization of your nation. It's ideas. As most nations in your tech group will remain around your level regardless. Thats the goal, to remain level or slightly ahead/behind in the tech level, while picking and developing ideas that customize your nation. You cannot go for an advanced army or fleet while neglecting other tech trees anymore because it's not tech that advances that. It is the idea buffs. (though really in EU3 after a certain point you didn't have to neglect anything to get everything). There's nothing random about it, it's quite fantasticly done. Say your colonial, your neighbors grand navy idea. Your diplo tech and naval tech will remain equal, but your colonial capabilities blow his away, but his naval power and size will dwarf yours.
Its such an improvement on EU3 in everyway, the super blobbing as any nation made EU3 boring after the first 100 or so years, you can still blob fairly easily as a major nation, but starting small it's a lot more difficult unless your putting an insane amount of effort to accomplish some WC goal.
Don't feel to bad, I'm at 128.
Thats what I get for working for school boards.
I don't think EU4 was such an improvement.
I was hoping for a major overhaul in the combat system, guarani or tupi tribes in South America- which stills look empty as ever-, a better simulation of technology, a better simulation of diplomacy, a coherent trade system making a republican or trade focused experience fun, oportunity to play interesting alternate histories instead of the one that paradox invented where Sweden forms an ahistorical entity called Scandinavia, etc, etc.
Of them all, only trade fulfilled my hopes.
Seriously, I can't express my disappointment when I saw them french armies running away to Langedoc in the same old ping-pong of always, or when I tried to westernize as Japan and saw the same old unchanged simulation of technology (fall behind, enter in contact with europeans and then wait for crisis to end, as if all nations westernize the same way) or when I played as Netherlands and saw how only me was punished for expansion/colonization attempts with the arbitrarism of border friction (even with a long time ally!) and agressive expansion, while the AI with Spain, England or France could own 70% of the world and face no consequences. I won't even disgress about coalitions and how broken they are, rivalries, competition for global dominance, my nation own opinion restricting me of options and other senseless stuff that annoy me with diplomacy.
I remember of EU3 as a game that after patches and expansions was good, balanced and sadly deterministic. CK2 was so good since start that it made me thought that PDS was changing, made me create big, big expectatives in relation to EU4, and now days I regret pre-ordering it: after very frustrating gameplays (Japan!!) I'm shelving the game, maybe to play again when they fix and release all the bunch of stuff they are probably planning, charging us for it.
I was hoping for a major overhaul in the combat system, guarani or tupi tribes in South America- which stills look empty as ever-, a better simulation of technology, a better simulation of diplomacy, a coherent trade system making a republican or trade focused experience fun, oportunity to play interesting alternate histories instead of the one that paradox invented where Sweden forms an ahistorical entity called Scandinavia, etc, etc.
Of them all, only trade fulfilled my hopes.
Seriously, I can't express my disappointment when I saw them french armies running away to Langedoc in the same old ping-pong of always, or when I tried to westernize as Japan and saw the same old unchanged simulation of technology (fall behind, enter in contact with europeans and then wait for crisis to end, as if all nations westernize the same way) or when I played as Netherlands and saw how only me was punished for expansion/colonization attempts with the arbitrarism of border friction (even with a long time ally!) and agressive expansion, while the AI with Spain, England or France could own 70% of the world and face no consequences. I won't even disgress about coalitions and how broken they are, rivalries, competition for global dominance, my nation own opinion restricting me of options and other senseless stuff that annoy me with diplomacy.
I remember of EU3 as a game that after patches and expansions was good, balanced and sadly deterministic. CK2 was so good since start that it made me thought that PDS was changing, made me create big, big expectatives in relation to EU4, and now days I regret pre-ordering it: after very frustrating gameplays (Japan!!) I'm shelving the game, maybe to play again when they fix and release all the bunch of stuff they are probably planning, charging us for it.
Europa Universalis 3 was a good game, Europa Universalis 4 is a masterpiece. I can only imagine how extraordinary this game will be in 2 years.
Overall very impressed so far with EUIV. I had shelved EUIII long ago because it got too easy and repetitious. At this point, EUIV has some glitches and balancing issues but is already far superior. With some patches & an expansion or two it will be awesome.
Things I really like - the trade system with steering/merchants - very well implemented and adds a whole new way to play & try to dominate; the monarch points in the 3 separate categories (some balancing issues there still of course) and how it forces you to make hard decisions when in EU3 it was just spend the money; the terrain map which I use almost exclusively now; better combat and nation AI; siege "mini-game" - those are what come to mind right now.
Things I wish they had changed/improved more from EUIII - overall user interface is still not very good (an issue with all Pdox grand strategy games); more control over naval maintenance; colonization is still a grind
Things I really like - the trade system with steering/merchants - very well implemented and adds a whole new way to play & try to dominate; the monarch points in the 3 separate categories (some balancing issues there still of course) and how it forces you to make hard decisions when in EU3 it was just spend the money; the terrain map which I use almost exclusively now; better combat and nation AI; siege "mini-game" - those are what come to mind right now.
Things I wish they had changed/improved more from EUIII - overall user interface is still not very good (an issue with all Pdox grand strategy games); more control over naval maintenance; colonization is still a grind
I like the graphics in EU4, but I don't like the magic points system. It's way too gamey and feels so uncharacteristic of the Europa Universalis series.
I'm just disappointed they didn't change how religion works at all. It really doesn't make much sense to me- they have excellent inspiration in the forms of some of the Total War games or in the form of the DG mod for EU3.
Aside from that, it undoubtedly is a much better game than EU3 was at the start, and that can only mean excellent things for its future.
Aside from that, it undoubtedly is a much better game than EU3 was at the start, and that can only mean excellent things for its future.
Pros:
1. Better diplomacy
2. Better colonial system
3. The tech system is definitely better because you can still expand without fearing that you will fall behind in tech too much just simply because you're bigger. That never made any sense to me in EU3
All around improvement.. except for..
Cons:
1. I build very few buildings. IMO, it's not worth it because it cost too many points. If they toned it down to something like 5, it may be worth the investment
2. I constantly chase around armies just to kill them, despite my superior army
3. I don't play Ironman mode because it forces you to play lucky nations as historical. That means France gets a even bigger advantage than it already has just being France. Basically adding more unneeded power to a already powerful country. If they toned down the power of lucky nations, then I will be okay with it.
4. This is just a personal thing, nothing too major or game breaking, but I hate how northern Italy looks. It's way too bumpy. I understand it's very mountainy there, but I wish they would tone it down just a bit.
Overall, much better than EU3. Once all the little bugs are fixed with patches, it will definitely be my favorite Paradox game yet. This is coming from a guy who played over 500 hours of EU3 (and another 100 hours in Death & Taxes mod lol)
Edit: Almost forgot. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW WHEN REBELS RANDOMLY ENTER MY LAND. Seriously, this has to be the best thing Paradox has ever done in their entire existence
1. Better diplomacy
2. Better colonial system
3. The tech system is definitely better because you can still expand without fearing that you will fall behind in tech too much just simply because you're bigger. That never made any sense to me in EU3
All around improvement.. except for..
Cons:
1. I build very few buildings. IMO, it's not worth it because it cost too many points. If they toned it down to something like 5, it may be worth the investment
2. I constantly chase around armies just to kill them, despite my superior army
3. I don't play Ironman mode because it forces you to play lucky nations as historical. That means France gets a even bigger advantage than it already has just being France. Basically adding more unneeded power to a already powerful country. If they toned down the power of lucky nations, then I will be okay with it.
4. This is just a personal thing, nothing too major or game breaking, but I hate how northern Italy looks. It's way too bumpy. I understand it's very mountainy there, but I wish they would tone it down just a bit.
Overall, much better than EU3. Once all the little bugs are fixed with patches, it will definitely be my favorite Paradox game yet. This is coming from a guy who played over 500 hours of EU3 (and another 100 hours in Death & Taxes mod lol)
Edit: Almost forgot. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW WHEN REBELS RANDOMLY ENTER MY LAND. Seriously, this has to be the best thing Paradox has ever done in their entire existence
Last edited:
EU3 was a very buggy product (without being game-breaking) upon release, and took many updates over many months to work that out. EU4 seems to be more a matter of tweaking. General agreement on that?
I would agree, yes. Although interestingly enough some of the bugs from Eu3 are repeated in Eu4, here's looking at you Japan.
At any rate, I loved Eu3, spent more time playing Eu3 than any game I've owned, with the exception possibly of Civ IV, but I've owned it longer. Coming to Eu4 I didn't really know what to expect. The problem with sequels is you judge it by the originals standards, which means it competes with not only game play but nostalgia. Eu4 doesn't disappoint though, there have been vast improvements in certain area's.
Most of these have been pointed out, diplomats/magistrates/colonists/merchants are no longer a form of currency and you can't have unlimited diplomatic relationships. There are more diplomatic options which is always a positive and the UI has received a massive overhaul. I enjoy the new coring mechanics over Eu3 and like the AE mechanic and while some of these still need tweaks and balancing, I feel the game at launch was very stable and look forward to patches to come.
Lastly coalitions...I like the idea of coalitions as I think they make sense, but I feel these are one of the more unrefined aspects of Eu4 at the moment and could use some major polishing.
And what about making buildings and units en masse through Production, instead of going through provinces individually to raise 30 regiments and forgetting what you were recruiting and how many were left midway through the process?
I would never dream of going back to EU3. To be honest, it was never a favorite game of mine as it was far too sandbox-y and unhistorical for my tastes. To a certain extent every country played exactly the same as every other country. And I was never a big fan of the mods which tried to correct this, so I ended up not playing it that much. It's a good game, just not for me.
I am much happier in EU4 with its increased historicity (I am hoping there will be more historical events added...I would certainly buy a historical DLC). I also like the new game mechanics, monarch points etc., as well as the elegant new interface.
EU3 is probably going off my hard drive soon.
I am much happier in EU4 with its increased historicity (I am hoping there will be more historical events added...I would certainly buy a historical DLC). I also like the new game mechanics, monarch points etc., as well as the elegant new interface.
EU3 is probably going off my hard drive soon.
I don't think there is anything that has gone backwards in EU4, there is a couple of things that feel basically the same and is a shame there isn't improvements (Music, religions, combat - though sieges is much better).
I think if they could improve some of that, and make the trade system slightly more fluid so big asian countries could influence direction some what, there wouldn't be a single part of the game that wasn't better than EU3.
I think if they could improve some of that, and make the trade system slightly more fluid so big asian countries could influence direction some what, there wouldn't be a single part of the game that wasn't better than EU3.
EU4 is much much better then EU3 in almost every way.
There are some problems with trade system (my main problem is that the world is dynamical, but the trade notes and trade routes are not. Still don't understand, why my riches from Siberia should go through China and Asia) and some minor problems, and it is still too easy even if you roleplay, but in general it is the best to date.
On the other hand, MMP is still the best for me.
There are some problems with trade system (my main problem is that the world is dynamical, but the trade notes and trade routes are not. Still don't understand, why my riches from Siberia should go through China and Asia) and some minor problems, and it is still too easy even if you roleplay, but in general it is the best to date.
On the other hand, MMP is still the best for me.
IMO Paradox made the right decision. Instead of reinventing the wheel like they did with HOI 3 (which was awful on release), they decided to do a better version of a previosu game, which will only become better with patches and expansions.
Things I don´t like:
1- Above all, ONE heir.
Dafuq?!?
After CK 2 why not make a Family tree? No I´m not asking Europa Kings 2.5, but it´s darn obvious that only one heir is absurd.
2- Economy still a bit too shallow.
Things I don´t like:
1- Above all, ONE heir.
Dafuq?!?
After CK 2 why not make a Family tree? No I´m not asking Europa Kings 2.5, but it´s darn obvious that only one heir is absurd.
2- Economy still a bit too shallow.
I started EU III with Divine Wind so i cant compare to Vanilla but i had more fun with EU III.
I guess to compare a Vanilla game to a game with years of expansion is quiet unfair but thats not important in the end.
The colonial system in EU IV is better, the trade system is better too but their are things that make the game unenjoyable to me. Some are small details that have already been announced to be reworked in the next patch but some are major things.
Dont want to go into details because i already wrote in other threads about those things.
Overall i can imagine that EU IV will be a good game in a few patches and i hope for a great game after one or two major DLC´s but at the moment i prefer to play other games when i have to to play something.
I played 92 hours so far (ok, more that i expected to be honost) but i havent started the game for at least ~10 days which is pretty sad that short after release.
Overall EU III DW > EU IV Vanilla imo but i see potential to turn this around.
I guess to compare a Vanilla game to a game with years of expansion is quiet unfair but thats not important in the end.
The colonial system in EU IV is better, the trade system is better too but their are things that make the game unenjoyable to me. Some are small details that have already been announced to be reworked in the next patch but some are major things.
Dont want to go into details because i already wrote in other threads about those things.
Overall i can imagine that EU IV will be a good game in a few patches and i hope for a great game after one or two major DLC´s but at the moment i prefer to play other games when i have to to play something.
I played 92 hours so far (ok, more that i expected to be honost) but i havent started the game for at least ~10 days which is pretty sad that short after release.
Overall EU III DW > EU IV Vanilla imo but i see potential to turn this around.
EU4 is a way better game.
The only thing that I liked better in EU3 was the coring system (I hate "claims"). But I don't know if it would be possible to keep the balance with other features from EU4, so I am not complaining ....
The only thing that I liked better in EU3 was the coring system (I hate "claims"). But I don't know if it would be possible to keep the balance with other features from EU4, so I am not complaining ....
I hate the monarch points, and the new merchant/colonist/magistrate/etc. system, the old one was better IMO. I will play more EU3DW with D&T until a mod comes out and removes these things.
I feel the game has a stronger basis than EU III, but still requires some heavy tweaking. In short:
-Give rulers a monthly 'building pool'. This lets you construct one or two buildings every other month without it costing monarch points, but if you want to spam buildings, you'll need to part with some monarch points anyways. I guess building is okay as a Western country, but if you're playing a muslim country or anything further east, any point you do not spend on tech means you'll lag behind even further.
-Tech penalties for non-Western countries. The penalty needs to be smaller AND the minus monarch points needs to be removed. Having both penalties in place means that anything but Ming is unplayable unless you cheese your way throug the game (<3 DDRJake)
-The AI's naval priorities are atrocious. If it builds a fleet, it will still do dumb things with it. If you're at war and the naval aspect of it is important, you've pretty much won the war by default.
-I'd like to see more events, mostly small ones but big ones are fine as well, that are tied to your country's national ideas and the things you're doing. A religious country that's at war with a bunch of unbelievers, a colonial country that's discovering new lands and coming into contact with new countries .. they don't have to be big, but it is these bits of randomness that make each game feel unique.
I have to admit that so far I've mostly played non-European countries, but after running Aceh twice and forming Japan as the Uesugi, I can tell you that the game ain't much when you get into contact with the West. No matter how well you play it, without cheesing it, you won't stand a chance.
-Give rulers a monthly 'building pool'. This lets you construct one or two buildings every other month without it costing monarch points, but if you want to spam buildings, you'll need to part with some monarch points anyways. I guess building is okay as a Western country, but if you're playing a muslim country or anything further east, any point you do not spend on tech means you'll lag behind even further.
-Tech penalties for non-Western countries. The penalty needs to be smaller AND the minus monarch points needs to be removed. Having both penalties in place means that anything but Ming is unplayable unless you cheese your way throug the game (<3 DDRJake)
-The AI's naval priorities are atrocious. If it builds a fleet, it will still do dumb things with it. If you're at war and the naval aspect of it is important, you've pretty much won the war by default.
-I'd like to see more events, mostly small ones but big ones are fine as well, that are tied to your country's national ideas and the things you're doing. A religious country that's at war with a bunch of unbelievers, a colonial country that's discovering new lands and coming into contact with new countries .. they don't have to be big, but it is these bits of randomness that make each game feel unique.
I have to admit that so far I've mostly played non-European countries, but after running Aceh twice and forming Japan as the Uesugi, I can tell you that the game ain't much when you get into contact with the West. No matter how well you play it, without cheesing it, you won't stand a chance.